People v. Fernandez,, G.R. No.

193478, June 23, 2014

FACTS: Nelson E. Tobias, along with Rodolfo Fernandez and others, was charged with violation of Section
5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (sale, delivery, and distribution of dangerous
drugs). On June 22, 2004, PDEA agents conducted a buy-bust operation in Mandaluyong City where
Tobias was caught handing over one (1) kilo of cocaine to a PDEA poseur-buyer in exchange for ₱2
million in boodle money. The operation was planned after accused Fernandez negotiated with PDEA
agent PO1 Padua to find a buyer for the cocaine. During the transaction, Tobias delivered the cocaine
inside Fernandez’s house. After the signal was given, operatives arrested Tobias and Fernandez. Tobias
was caught with the boodle money. He later admitted that his companions were waiting nearby. Other
accomplices were also arrested, and the cocaine tested positive in laboratory examinations. Tobias
denied the allegations and claimed he was framed. He also questioned the alleged noncompliance with
the chain-of-custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC found Tobias guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of selling dangerous drugs and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a ₱2 million
fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Tobias elevated the case to the Supreme Court, raising the issue of
noncompliance with the chain-of-custody rule.

ISSUE:
Whether the conviction of accused-appellant Tobias for the sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5,
R.A. No. 9165, was proper despite alleged noncompliance with the chain-of-custody rule.

RULING:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.

The Court held that all elements of the sale of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt:

1. Identity of the buyer and seller – Tobias was identified as the person who delivered the cocaine
to the poseur-buyer.

2. Object and consideration – One kilo of cocaine in exchange for ₱2 million (boodle money).

3. Delivery and payment – The transaction took place and Tobias received the boodle money.

The Court emphasized that delivery or distribution of dangerous drugs, even without actual payment, is
punishable under Section 5. Testimonies of police officers, particularly the poseur-buyer PO1 Padua,
were credible and consistent.

As to the chain-of-custody issue, the Court reiterated that minor lapses in procedure do not
automatically invalidate the seizure, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug is
preserved. The Court noted that ideal chain-of-custody compliance is rarely perfect in real-world
operations, and that substantial compliance suffices if the evidence's identity and integrity are unbroken.

DOCTRINE:
In prosecutions for sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, R.A. No. 9165:

 What matters is the delivery of the drug to another, with or without consideration.

 Actual payment is not an element of the offense.

 Failure to strictly comply with the chain-of-custody requirements under Section 21 is not fatal
when the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved.

 Police officers are presumed to perform their duties regularly unless proven otherwise by clear
and convincing evidence.

 Mere denials and claims of frame-up, if uncorroborated, cannot prevail over positive and
credible testimonies of law enforcement agents.
People v. Jaime de Motor, G.R. No. 245486, November 27, 2019

Facts:

Ronald Jaime De Motor y Dantes was charged with violations of Sections 5 (Sale) and 11 (Possession) of
R.A. 9165. The police conducted a buy-bust operation after receiving a tip from a civilian informant. The
operation took place at a Jollibee outlet in Lipa City on August 13, 2012, where five sachets of dried
marijuana leaves were allegedly sold by the accused to a poseur-buyer. Upon frisking, four more sachets
were found in his pocket.

The seized items were later marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police station in the presence
of an elected public official and a media representative, but without a representative from the DOJ.
These were then brought to the crime laboratory and tested positive for marijuana.

The accused denied the charges, claiming he was merely eating inside the fast food restaurant when
officers suddenly arrested him.

The RTC and CA convicted him, ruling that the sale and possession were proven beyond reasonable
doubt, and the chain of custody was substantially complied with.

Issue:

Whether or not the conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs should be upheld
despite the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and photographing of the seized
drugs.

Ruling: No.

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused.

The Court held that there was a material deviation from the chain of custody rule required under
Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640. Specifically, the failure to secure the presence of a
DOJ representative during the inventory and photography of the seized items was not justified by the
prosecution. No explanation was offered for this omission, and the records showed no effort to secure
the required witness.

The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is essential, and any lapse
must be justified with a valid explanation and proof of genuine efforts to comply.

Due to the unjustified non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were
compromised, thus creating reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.

Doctrine:

🔹 In drug-related offenses under R.A. 9165, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established
with moral certainty, being part of the corpus delicti.

🔹 The chain of custody rule under Section 21 requires the presence of specific witnesses during the
inventory and photography of seized items:
— Before R.A. 10640: DOJ representative, media, and an elected public official
— After R.A. 10640: An elected public official and either a DOJ/National Prosecution Service
representative or media

🔹 Non-compliance with this rule must be justified, and the prosecution bears the burden to explain the
lapse and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were preserved.

🔹 Mere absence of objection from the defense does not excuse the prosecution from complying with
this requirement.
People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 258077. June 15, 2022

Facts

Donato Hernandez was charged with Illegal Sale (Sec. 5) and Illegal Possession (Sec. 11) of dangerous
drugs under R.A. 9165, after a buy-bust operation in Calamba City, Laguna. Police Officer Villarino acted
as the poseur-buyer, purchased 0.12g of shabu from Donato, and allegedly recovered 11.69g more
during a search. The items were marked and inventoried at the scene, and then delivered to the crime
lab. The forensic chemist's testimony was waived by stipulation, and the prosecution relied mainly on
the testimony of the arresting officer.

Donato denied the charges, claiming the drugs were planted and that he was coerced by the arresting
officers.

Issue

Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was sufficiently established to uphold Donato
Hernandez’s conviction under Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165.

Ruling

No. The Supreme Court acquitted Donato Hernandez due to fatal lapses in the chain of custody, which
cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti (the illegal drugs). The Court ruled that the
prosecution failed to establish the third and fourth links in the chain of custody.

Doctrine

Under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, strict compliance with the chain of custody
rule is essential. The four links that must be clearly established are:

1. Seizure and marking of the dangerous drugs at the place of arrest;

2. Turnover of the seized items to the investigating officer;

3. Turnover by the investigator to the forensic chemist;

4. Submission of the items to the court.

The Court emphasized:

 While the first two links were substantially complied with, the third link was flawed due to the
non-presentation of PO2 Comia, who received the items at the lab.

 The fourth link was also not established, since the forensic chemist (PCI Huelgas) did not testify
on the handling and storage of the drugs post-examination.

 Stipulation of testimony on lab results alone is insufficient to prove the chain of custody.

 The presumption of regularity cannot override a presumption of innocence when the chain of
custody is broken.

Thus, when the identity of the corpus delicti is not established with moral certainty, acquittal is
warranted.
People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 247522. February 28, 2022

Facts:

On August 6, 2011, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Zoraida Mariano a.k.a. Nora in Davao
City based on a tip about her illegal drug activities. PO3 Lendro Tutor, acting as the poseur-buyer,
purchased shabu from Nora, leading to her arrest. The police recovered additional illegal drugs and cash
from Nora. The seized items were immediately marked by PO3 Tutor and secured in his custody at the
police station due to the crowding at the scene. Inventory and photographing of the evidence were
delayed until August 8, 2011, due to the operation occurring on a Saturday.

The chain of custody was argued to have been maintained despite the delay in inventory. PO3 Tutor
properly marked and transferred the items to the crime laboratory, where they were examined and
confirmed to contain methamphetamine. The prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody,
with the required documentation and witnesses present during the process. The courts upheld the
conviction, ruling that the substantial compliance with legal requirements preserved the integrity of the
evidence.

Issue: Whether or not the accused, Zoraida Mariano a.k.a. Nora, is guilty of the Illegal Sale and Illegal
Possession of Dangerous Drugs, considering the failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of
custody of the seized drugs.

Ruling: No. The appeal is granted. The conviction of the accused is overturned, and she is acquitted due
to the prosecution's failure to establish the integrity and identity of the seized drugs beyond reasonable
doubt. The Court found that the police officers did not comply with the mandatory requirements of
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165), as amended by RA 10640, particularly
with regard to the proper handling, inventory, and custody of the seized drugs. This procedural lapse
compromised the chain of custody and introduced doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court
were indeed the same drugs seized from the accused. The Court emphasized the importance of the
unbroken chain of custody to preserve the integrity of evidence in drug-related cases.

Doctrine: To establish the identity of seized illegal drugs, the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain
of custody, as required by Section 21 of RA 9165. This involves properly marking, photographing, and
inventorying the seized items in the presence of the accused and independent witnesses immediately
after seizure. Any lapse or failure to comply with these requirements raises doubt about the authenticity
and integrity of the evidence, and such failure could result in the acquittal of the accused. Non-
compliance must be justified by the prosecution, and if the integrity of the evidence cannot be assured,
the accused must be acquitted due to the failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016

Facts:

The accused was convicted for the illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section
5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The case centered on the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The
prosecution demonstrated the proper handling and preservation of the evidence, which included three
plastic packs containing 1.44 grams of shabu. Despite the accused's claims of procedural lapses,
including the failure of police officers to make an inventory report, the Court of Appeals upheld the
conviction, emphasizing that the integrity of the drugs was maintained. It ruled that non-compliance
with procedural details, such as the inventory report, did not invalidate the evidence as long as the chain
of custody was unbroken and the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved. The Court found no
convincing evidence of tampering, affirming the presumption of regularity in the officers' duties. The
appeal was denied, and the original decision was affirmed.

Issue:
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the conviction of Jehar Reyes for the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, considering the lapses in the chain of custody?

Ruling: Yes.
The Supreme Court acquitted Jehar Reyes on the grounds of reasonable doubt. It ruled that the
prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody required to prove the integrity and identity of the
seized drugs. Serious lapses, such as failure to immediately mark the confiscated items, lack of witness
presence from the media or DOJ representatives, and failure to conduct a proper inventory and take
photographs, led to substantial doubts about the authenticity of the evidence. The Court emphasized
the importance of the chain of custody in drug-related offenses, asserting that gaps in this process raise
reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution's case.

Doctrine:
In drug-related offenses under R.A. No. 9165, the chain of custody of the seized drugs is critical for the
prosecution's success. The prosecution must ensure that the seized items are properly marked,
inventoried, and photographed in the presence of required witnesses, such as the accused, media, DOJ
representatives, and elected public officials. Any substantial lapses in preserving the chain of custody, or
failure to explain such lapses, may lead to reasonable doubt and result in acquittal. The presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty by law enforcement does not prevail over the presumption of
innocence when significant irregularities are present in the handling of evidence.
People v. Alon-alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019

Facts: On August 13, 2012, a buy-bust operation was conducted in San Pedro, Laguna, based on
confidential information about the accused-appellant, Allan Alon-Alon y Lizarda, engaging in illegal drug
activities. The accused allegedly sold one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to a police poseur-buyer for Php 300.00. Upon
arrest, the plastic sachet and buy-bust money were marked. However, the inventory and photography of
the seized items were done only at the police station in the presence of the accused and a media
representative, but not a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative or an elected public official.

The specimen was sent to the crime laboratory and tested positive for shabu. The accused denied the
charges, claiming that the police officers planted the drugs on him. He was found guilty of violating
Section 5, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (R.A. 9165) by the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, which sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine.

Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant,
specifically regarding the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs under Section 21 of R.A.
9165.

Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the accused-appellant, reversing and setting aside the
decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court emphasized that in cases involving dangerous drugs, strict
adherence to the chain of custody procedure is crucial to establish the integrity and identity of the seized
drug.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165,
particularly in ensuring the presence of all required witnesses during the inventory and photography of
the seized item (i.e., a DOJ representative and an elected public official). Additionally, the prosecution
failed to provide a justifiable reason for these lapses or to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized drug were preserved.

The Court further noted that the prosecution did not establish the necessary links in the chain of
custody, such as the failure to present testimony on how the drugs were handled while in the custody of
the officers and the absence of the evidence custodian in court. Given these procedural lapses, the Court
found that there was reasonable doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the seized drug, leading to
the acquittal of the accused.

Doctrine: In drug-related cases, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody for the
seized drugs. This requires showing that the drugs were properly marked and inventoried at the time of
seizure and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were preserved at every stage of their
custody, including turnover to the forensic chemist and presentation in court. Any breach in this chain,
without a justifiable explanation, casts doubt on the credibility of the evidence, which may result in the
acquittal of the accused.
People v. Paguinto, G.R. No. 256242, January 18, 2023

Facts: Mark Anthony Paguinto was charged with the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). On August 23, 2014, he was
arrested in a buy-bust operation where he sold methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to PO2 Ronel
Agsawa, who was acting as a poseur-buyer. The buy-bust operation was conducted after a tip from a
confidential informant. Following the transaction, the police recovered additional sachets of shabu from
Mark Anthony's possession. The seized items were properly marked, inventoried, and photographed in
the presence of elected public officials and a media representative. The seized drugs were subjected to
forensic examination and found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Issue: Whether the prosecution had proven the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs,
specifically questioning the non-presentation of the confidential informant and discrepancies in the
handling of the seized items.

Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, finding no merit in the
appeal. It held that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody, ensuring the integrity
of the seized drugs. The Court ruled that the failure to present the confidential informant was not fatal
as the testimony of PO2 Agsawa, who was the poseur-buyer, was sufficient to prove the elements of the
crime. Furthermore, the Court found that the procedural lapses, such as the non-presentation of the
exact person who marked the seized drugs, were justified, and the integrity of the seized items was
maintained.

Doctrine:

1. Chain of Custody: The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized
drugs, from the time they were confiscated until they were presented in court. The law
mandates specific procedures for handling, marking, and safeguarding the drugs to ensure their
integrity and evidentiary value. Minor lapses in procedure, if justifiable, do not automatically
invalidate the seizure, provided the integrity of the evidence is preserved.

2. Role of the Confidential Informant: The presentation of the confidential informant is not always
required in drug cases, especially when the testimony of the poseur-buyer who witnessed the
transaction is sufficient. The informant's role is often limited to introducing the poseur-buyer and
is not essential for proving the offense. The absence of the informant does not automatically
undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case.
People v. De Lumen, G.R. No. 240749, December 11, 2019

Facts: The case involves the prosecution of Giovanni de Lumen y Ladlagaran (appellant) and Maura
Aranzaso y Mendoza (co-accused) for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
(R.A. No. 9165). Appellant was found in possession of drug paraphernalia, including aluminum foil,
lighters, and plastic sachets with traces of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). These items were
seized during a buy-bust operation conducted on September 11, 2009, at the residence of Maura in
General Trias, Cavite. During the operation, Maura was caught selling shabu to a poseur-buyer, while the
appellant was found using illegal drugs inside the house. Both were arrested and charged. Maura was
convicted of drug sale, while appellant was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia.

Issue: Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that the appellant’s conviction for violating Section
12 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) was valid, particularly in light of the alleged
procedural lapses concerning the chain of custody of the seized items and noncompliance with the
requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by RA 10640.

Ruling: No. The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the conviction of Giovanni de Lumen for illegal possession
of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165. The court emphasized that despite the
presence of certain procedural lapses, the integrity of the seized items was preserved, and appellant's
guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It ruled that the prosecution had adequately shown that
appellant was in possession of drug paraphernalia, and the evidence presented was sufficient to
establish his guilt.

Doctrine: The case highlights the importance of the "Saving Clause" or "Saving Mechanism" in relation to
the procedural requirements set out in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The Court clarified that
noncompliance with the requirements for the physical inventory and photographing of seized items,
including the presence of the required witnesses (elected public official, DOJ representative, and media),
does not automatically render the evidence inadmissible. However, for the "Saving Clause" to apply, the
prosecution must prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, and
there must be justifiable grounds for the failure to comply with the procedural requirements. The Court
ruled that despite the lapses, the prosecution had not sufficiently explained why the required witnesses
were absent, leading to a compromise in the integrity of the chain of custody.
People v. Bondad; G.R. No. 173804; December 10, 2008

Facts:

1. Accused: Elpidio Bondad, Jr. was arrested during a buy-bust operation on January 29, 2004, in
Marikina City. He was charged with selling (Section 5, Article II) and possessing (Section 11,
Article II) dangerous drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a prohibited
drug under R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

2. Evidence Seized: The police seized three sachets of shabu during the operation. The sachets
were marked by PO2 Dano, the poseur-buyer, but no inventory or photographs were taken in the
presence of the accused, media, an elected official, or a DOJ representative, as required by
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

3. Trial Court: The trial court convicted the appellant of the crimes charged based on the testimony
of the poseur-buyer and other evidence, despite the failure to comply with Section 21
requirements.

4. Appeal: The appellate court affirmed the conviction, but modified the sentence. The defense
raised the failure to comply with Section 21 in their appeal, arguing that it compromised the
integrity of the seized drugs.

Issue:

The primary issue revolves around whether the failure to comply with the procedural requirements of
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (which mandates the inventory and photographing of seized drugs) renders
the evidence inadmissible and whether the Saving Clause or Saving Mechanism Clause can be invoked to
uphold the integrity of the evidence despite the procedural lapses.

Ruling: Yes.

The Supreme Court ruled that:

1. Non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (regarding the inventory and photographing of
the seized drugs) is not automatically fatal, as long as there is justifiable ground for non-
compliance and the integrity of the seized items has been preserved.

2. However, in this case, no justifiable reason for the failure to comply with the procedural
requirements was provided. Despite the appellant’s arrest being valid, the failure to properly
inventory or photograph the seized drugs compromised the integrity of the evidence.

3. The Saving Clause (as found in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165) could not
be invoked in this case because the integrity of the seized items was questioned. The non-
compliance with the law’s procedural safeguards, coupled with the lack of a reasonable
justification, led to the acquittal of the appellant.

4. Therefore, the Court acquitted the appellant, reversing the lower courts' decisions. The evidence
was ruled inadmissible due to the failure to preserve its integrity, and the Saving Clause could
not be used to uphold the evidence in this instance.

Doctrine:

The Saving Clause or Saving Mechanism Clause in R.A. No. 9165 allows for non-compliance with certain
procedural requirements (such as inventory, photographing, etc.) if there are justifiable grounds for the
failure and if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However,
failure to comply with these requirements without justifiable reasons compromises the integrity of the
evidence, rendering it inadmissible and potentially resulting in acquittal.
People v. Ortega; G.R. No. 207392; July 2, 2014

FACTS

Ramie Ortega y Kalbi a.k.a. Ay-ay was arrested on February 12, 2005, in a buy-bust operation conducted
by the Zamboanga City Police. He was caught selling two sachets of shabu to a poseur-buyer and was
charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002). During trial, Ortega challenged the validity of the evidence against him, citing alleged procedural
lapses in the custody and handling of the seized drugs. Specifically, he claimed there was no proper
inventory and the marking of the items was not done in his presence or in the presence of
representatives from the media, DOJ, or any elected official, as required under Section 21.

ISSUE

Whether the procedural lapses in complying with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 rendered the evidence
against the accused inadmissible, thus warranting his acquittal.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Ramie Ortega. It held that
while there were deviations from the strict requirements of Section 21 (e.g., no inventory signed by
required witnesses), the chain of custody was nonetheless sufficiently established through the
testimonies of the apprehending officers. The Court stressed that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items were preserved, and the Saving Clause under Section 21 of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) applies.

DOCTRINE

Under the Saving Clause of Section 21(a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, non-compliance with the
prescribed procedure in the custody of seized drugs (e.g., lack of inventory or absence of witnesses)
does not automatically render the seizure and custody invalid, provided that:

 Justifiable grounds exist for such non-compliance; and

 The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officers.

The Court reiterated that substantial compliance with Section 21 is sufficient and that the chain of
custody rule must be evaluated based on whether the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken
chain from seizure to presentation in court, ensuring that the seized drugs were not tampered with.